MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, & BASINS

HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL REPORT TR-2011-01

OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD 2011 Planning and Management Division

MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN & LITTLE RIVER BASINS

HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGA TION

Maria A. Moreno Water Resources Engineer

Technical Report 2011-01 Published: August, 2012 Available online at: www.owrb.ok.gov

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION ...... 2

Basin Characteristics ...... 2

Land Cover/Use ...... 2

Water Balance ...... 3

Groundwater ...... 5

Reservoirs in the Basin ...... 5

Annual Flows, Peaks, and Flow Duration ...... 6

Water Rights and Water Use ...... 8

STREAM WATER ALLOCATION MODELING ...... 11

Model Development ...... 11

Water Availability ...... 14

REFERENCES ...... 17

MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, & LITTLE RIVER BASINS HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION

INTRODUCTION

The Water Resources Board (OWRB) is authorized by state law to conduct hydrologic investigations for stream systems to ascertain the amount of unappropriated water available and determine if proposed uses would interfere with domestic and existing appropriative uses.

In 2009, the OWRB initiated the Stream Water Allocation Modeling Program as a supporting tool for the effective management of surface water allocation. The program develops models on a statewide basis specifically to estimate availability of unappropriated water and identify potential interference of water rights. Other applications of the models include evaluating new permit applications based on water availability and reliability; performing drought analyses to anticipate interference and areas sensitive to water shortages; and evaluating water policy scenarios involving transfers of water, instream flows, or interstate stream compacts.

This report is a hydrological investigation of the Middle Canadian, Lower Canadian, and Little River basins that includes a hydrologic characterization of the basin and a description of the stream water allocation model developed for the system for the estimation of water reliability. Results from the calibrated model are also presented, showing the expected available water after appropriation for each sub-basin of the system. This assessment is necessary to accurately manage current water rights, and to determine the future appropriation of water in the stream systems.

Page 1

HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION

BASIN CHARACTERISTICS The Middle Canadian, Lower Canadian, and Little River basins lie in the counties of , Canadian, Grady, Cleveland, McClain, Pottawatomie, Seminole and Pontotoc and Hughes as shown in Figure 1. The Canadian River flows from the Upper Canadian River basin (OWRB System 2-6-3) into the Middle Canadian basin, and 194 miles downstream to the southeast to its confluence with the Little River at river mile 102.4. The Little River basin originates in Cleveland County and flows 120 miles to its confluence with the Canadian River.

The Middle Canadian and Lower Canadian basins have a drainage area of 710 mi2, and 1,148 mi2, respectively. Elevation in these basins ranges from 207 to 495 feet, while the Canadian River flows in these systems with an average slope of 0.08 %. The Little River basin has a drainage area of 889 mi2, and flows with an average bed slope of 0.09%. The basins are part of the Canadian River interstate stream compact between , Oklahoma, and .

FIGURE 1 SHADED RELIEF OF THE MIDDLE CANADIAN (2-6-2), LOWER CANADIAN (2-6-1), AND THE LITTLE RIVER (2-8) BASINS

LAND COVER/USE Irrigation and hydropower are the prevalent uses in the Middle Canadian, Lower Canadian, and Little River basins. The Middle Canadian and Little River basins are composed of Central Redbed Plains that transition into High Plains from alluvial sands in the Lower Canadian basin (McGaugh, 1986). The Page 2

predominant deep loamy soils sustain crops of pasture, hay and small grains, and large areas of deciduous forest mainly in the Little River basin, as depicted in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2 NATIONAL LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION FOR OWRB SYSTEMS 2-6-1, 2-6-2 AND 2-8

WATER BALANCE A water balance was constructed for the Middle Canadian, Lower Canadian, and Little River basins for the period 2003-2010 using available hydro-meteorological data. Mean monthly precipitation data is estimated using the Mesonet stations at Norman and Holdenville, while streamflow is retrieved from the active USGS streamflow gages Little River near Sasakwa, OK (USGS 07231000) and Canadian River at Calvin, OK (USGS 07231500). Daily streamflow is used as input of the PART program (Rutledge, 1998) to obtain baseflow and runoff, while actual evapotranspiration is computed as a residual of the water budget. The seasonal variation of the components in the water budget for each basin is presented in Tables 1 and 2 for Little River basin, and the Canadian River basins, respectively. The overall budget for the area is depicted in Figure 3, where the mean annual rainfall is 34 inches, and actual evapotranspiration is the main output of the system and accounts for 83% of the available water. About 90 percent of the streams in the area are ephemeral and carry water during wet periods of the year when runoff is abundant and water table rises above the base of the stream channels.

Page 3

TABLE 1 SEASONAL WATER BALANCE FOR THE LITTLE RIVER BASIN (2003-2010), IN ACRE-FEET (AF)

Little River Basin, OK (2003-2010) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year P 56,211 82,499 119,376 140,870 189,706 239,769 167,274 201,033 147,740 161,585 54,810 67,090 1,627,923 R 6,045 6,1464 13,335 14,817 30,167 42,909 18,017 9,779 3,675 10,490 7,705 4,919 237,322 BF 4,682 5,986 7,586 8,120 13,276 9,660 14,224 6,875 5,038 2,134 3,200 4,089 84,870 aET 45,484 70,350 98,455 117,934 146,264 187,200 135,033 184,379 139,028 148,961 43,905 58,081 1,375,074 P = Precipitation; R = Surface runoff; BF = Baseflow discharge; aET = Actual Evapotranspiration

TABLE 2 SEASONAL WATER BALANCE FOR THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CANADIAN RIVER BASINS (2003-2010), IN ACRE-FEET (AF)

Middle Canadian and Lower Canadian River Basins, OK (2003-2010) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year P 117,550 172,524 249,643 294,592 396,718 501,412 349,808 42,404 308,958 337,910 114,620 140,300 3,404,439 R 18,782 12,443 30,979 41,405 42,068 63,763 40,741 19,208 12,214 19,431 16,848 9,990 327,872 BF 21,871 21,458 27,501 31,167 22,247 22,149 15,944 4,511 9,392 8,092 13,071 14,667 212,070 aET 76,898 138,623 191,162 222,019 332,404 415,500 293,123 396,686 287,351 310,387 84,701 115,643 2,864,497 P = Precipitation; R = Surface runoff; BF = Baseflow discharge; aET = Actual Evapotranspiration

FIGURE 3 OVERALL WATER BUDGET FOR THE STUDY AREA, EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF PRECIPITATION (2003-2010) MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS

Page 4

GROUNDWATER The surface geology of the Middle Canadian and Lower Canadian basins includes the Rush Springs, Duncan, and Dog Creek Shale Formations, which are part of the El Reno group (Figure 4). The Little River runs through the Garber Sandstone, Wellington and Vanoss Formation. The lower part of the area where the Little River joins the Canadian River is part of the Wewoka formation. Perennial streams are related geologic formations that continuously provide baseflow discharge to streams throughout the year. The permanent flows are supported by the Rush Springs and Marlow Formations in the Middle Canadian and by the Garber Sandstone and alluvium deposits in the Lower Canadian and Little River basins.

FIGURE 4 GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS IN THE MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS

RESERVOIRS IN THE BASIN The largest reservoirs in the Little River basin are Lake Thunderbird and Stanley Draper in the Little River basin. Table 4 shows a summary of the largest reservoirs in the Middle Canadian, Lower Canadian, and Little River basins registered in the OWRB Safety database, as of 2011.

Page 5

FIGURE 5 RESERVOIRS IN THE MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS, ACTIVE ON THE DAM SAFETY INVENTORY

TABLE 4 RESERVOIR STORAGE IN THE MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS Reservoir Storage in Acre Feet (AF) Criteria Number of Structures Name Construction Date Basin Normal Storage (AF) Lake Thunderbird 1965 Little River 119,600 Stanley Draper Lake 1962 Little River 100,000 > 1,000 AF 6 Konawa Lake 1964 Lower Canadian 23,000 Holdenville City Lake 1931 Lower Canadian 11,000 Purcell City Lake 1930 Lower Canadian 2,600 Cedar Lake Dam 1937 Middle Canadian 1,125 100 – 1,000 AF + 46 - - - 7,680

ANNUAL FLOWS, PEAKS, AND FLOW DURATION Streamflow data is available for the USGS gages at Calvin and near Sasawka for the period 1950 to 2010. The annual flows at USGS gages are presented in Figure 6. The gage at Sasawka shows a slight streamflow trend upwards and a mean annual discharge of 21,051 acre-feet. The downstream gauge at Calvin, which collects the waters flowing from the Canadian River and the Little River, shows a higher mean annual discharge of 57,494 acre-feet and a stronger upper trend. The growing streamflow upper trends might reflect an increase in return flows from irrigation practices and other uses in the area.

Page 6

FIGURE 6 ANNUAL STREAMFLOW AT USGS GAGES IN THE MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN, AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS (1950-2010)

Analysis of the streamflow records from 1950 to 2010 shows that the largest discharge measured at the gage near Sasawka was 31,600 cfs in January 1950, while the maximum flow at the gage near Calvin was 140,000 cfs in January 1987 (Figure 7). Peak flows at the gages show a slight trend downwards that reflects the attenuating effect of the flood control structures in the streams.

FIGURE 7 PEAK FLOWS MEASURED A THE USGS GAGES CANADIAN RIVER AT CALVIN, AND CANADIAN RIVER NEAR SASAKWA, OK

Page 7

From the continuous daily streamflow data recorded at the gage from January 1st, 1950 to December 31st, 2010, there are 240 days of zero flow near Calvin, which corresponds to 1% of the records, and 678 days of zero flow near Sasakwa, which represents 3% of the records. The Canadian and Little River are considered perennial streams because flows at the gages are above zero flow more than 90 percent of the time. Streams with zero flows more than 10% of the time are intermittent (U.S. Forest Service, 2005).

TABLE 3 MONTHLY PERCENT EXCEEDANCE AT THE USGS GAUGES CANADIAN RIVER AT CALVIN AND LITTLE RIVER NEAR SASAKWA, IN ACRE-FEET (AF) Percent Exceedance in Acre-Feet (AF) Exceedance Flow Mean 90% 80% 50% 20% Sasakwa 5,884 474 948 3,319 24,181 January Calvin 36,572 163 1,374 4,730 18,885 Sasakwa 16,867 948 948 4,741 23,233 February Calvin 49,695 10,442 16,065 42,834 150,238 Sasakwa 21,712 948 2,371 8,534 23,233 March Calvin 71,070 13,132 21,319 84,907 178,976 Sasakwa 17,261 2,371 4,267 13,276 37,457 April Calvin 91,740 22,473 30,750 103,292 234,668 Sasakwa 37,806 3,793 7,112 26,077 60,215 May Calvin 137,051 31,648 45,851 36,206 409,836 Sasakwa 23,676 948 1,897 10,905 46,465 June Calvin 93,918 29,143 43,512 36,206 409,836 Sasakwa 10,602 497 948 6,638 25,603 July Calvin 33,977 3,332 7,670 27,453 135,958 Sasakwa 5,643 474 474 2,371 21,810 August Calvin 16,902 1,035 3,392 14,209 76,993 Sasakwa 7,415 474 948 4,741 23,233 September Calvin 31,231 1,482 5,742 32,023 113,943 Sasakwa 12,055 948 1,422 8,534 28,448 October Calvin 46,627 1,136 46,166 46,166 120,369 Sasakwa 10,446 474 948 8,534 28,448 November Calvin 42,667 2,779 4,962 34,010 130,424 Sasakwa 7,578 474 474 5,690 18,017 December Calvin 38,471 2,779 4,990 34,010 130,424 Sasakwa 14,746 12,823 22,757 100,990 360,343 MEAN ANNUAL Calvin 57,494 9,962 231,765 583,065 1,970,606

WATER RIGHTS AND WATER USE As of 2010, there are 11 surface water rights (permits) in the Little River basin that total 24,466 ac-ft appropriated, 20 permits in the Middle Canadian River basin that add up to 29,262 ac-ft appropriated, and 37 permits in the Lower Canadian River basin that equal 14,103 ac-ft. A list of active water rights for each basin is presented in Table 4, and a map showing all active water rights is presented in Figure 8.

Page 8

TABLE 4 APPROPRIATED WATER IN THE MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS IN ACRE-FEET (AF)

Appropriated Water in Acre-feet (AF) Primary Purpose Irrigation Rec Fish & Wildlife Municipal & Industrial Total Middle Canadian River (2-6-2) 27,891 203 584 28,678 Lower Canadian River (2-6-1) 9,323 127 39,665 49,107 Little River (2-8) 326 180 23,960 24,466

FIGURE 8 ACTIVE WATER RIGHTS IN THE MIDDLE CANADIAN, LOWER CANADIAN AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS

The OWRB maintains a database of water use that is updated every year from use reports submitted by water-right holders to the OWRB. The reported values are important for the agency to manage individual water rights and also to estimate water available in the basin after appropriation. Figure 8 shows the reported use (bars) and the permitted amounts (line) in the stream systems, as available on the OWRB Water Rights Database.

Page 9

(A)

(B)

(C)

FIGURE 9 REPORTED WATER USE AND APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS: (A) MIDDLE CANADIAN RIVER BASIN; (B) LOWER CANADIAN RIVER BASIN; AND (C) LITTLE RIVER BASIN

Page 10

STREAM WATER ALLOCATION MODELING

The OWRB Stream Allocation Program is a comprehensive water administrative tool for the evaluation and effective management of stream water rights in the state. In Oklahoma, stream water is considered to be publicly owned and subject to appropriation by the OWRB. Current Oklahoma water law and OWRB regulations require that a permit application be filed prior to the diversion of water. A permit would be senior to other permits issued on the stream at a later time, which is referred to as the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation (“first in time, first in right”) that is used by many states in the west to administer water rights (OWRB, 2009). Oklahoma’s water law requires the OWRB to evaluate three conditions before an application for the use of water is approved: 1) A present or future need for the water must exist and the intended use must be beneficial; 2) the applied for amount of unappropriated water must be available; 3) the use of water must not interfere with domestic or existing appropriative uses, and the needs of the area's water users if the application is for the transportation of water for use outside the area where the water originates (OWRB, 2009). The OWRB’s allocation modeling program aims to address the need for a more accurate determination of both availability and possible interference (conditions 2 and 3 above). By using data from 1950 to present, the models can provide better estimates of water availability after appropriation at any location of a basin, showing areas sensitive to water shortages, and taking into consideration inter-and intra-basin transfers. Models are constructed using a network-flow algorithm in Microsoft Excel® called Central Resource Allocation Model (CRAM), which is a numeric algorithm first developed by the Texas Department of Environmental Quality in the 1970s (Wurbs, 2004), and later incorporated into Excel and commercialized by the Consulting firm AMEC Earth and Environmental. The model simulates management of the water resources under a priority-based water allocation system. Historic water-use reports and streamflow at selected USGS gaging stations are used to assemble and calibrate the models on a monthly time-step. Simulations consist of naturalized flows that are distributed throughout the basin with water being allocated to each water right (Wurbs, 2006). Calibration of the model is performed until the simulated flows match the observed flows at the gages and ensures the model is representative of the hydrology of the basin. After calibration, simulations are run to estimate the amount of unappropriated water at ungaged locations, evaporation and content at reservoirs, and amount and frequency of shortages at permitted locations due to overuse by other permits or low streamflow conditions, among other analyses.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT The OWRB compiles water-use data reported by permit holders on an annual basis. The data is stored in the OWRB Water Rights Administration database and used to conduct hydrologic studies and allocation models. The first step involves naturalizing the observed gaged streamflow. Naturalization consists of removing the effects of permitted water uses to compute the flow that would have occurred at the gage under natural conditions (Wurbs, 2006).

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) is used to characterize areas of a basin of intermittent and perennial flow (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). Groundwater discharge supports the perennial flow of streams, particularly during low-flow periods. Streams lacking groundwater discharge are dependent on

Page 11

surface runoff and may flow only part of the year, thus are referred to as intermittent. Digital information on perennial and intermittent streams is retrieved from the digital dataset and plotted to identify the predominant types of streams at each sub-watershed (HUC-12). Units where perennial streams are dominant in most of the stream network or in the main stream are considered to be supported by a combination of baseflow and surface runoff, and therefore called perennial. The remaining sub-watersheds where flow is mainly intermittent or ephemeral are assigned direct runoff only. This stream classification is taken into consideration during the flow naturalization process, where perennial sub-basins are assigned with a mixture of runoff and baseflow discharge, while intermittent streams are assigned runoff only. Once naturalized flows are added as input of the model, along with information about water rights, several simulations are run to calibrate the simulated flows to recorded flows at the USGS gages Canadian River at Calvin and Little River near Sasakwa.

Allocation models in ExcelCRAM are composed of two types of objects that are inter-connected to represent the network: nodes, which are points at which water conveys, and links that carry water from one node to another. Construction of the model includes incorporating these objects in the model, and attributing hydrologic and water-rights data to each object. Hydrologic data includes inflows at each sub-watershed, reservoir/lake operations, environmental flows, and inter/intra-basin transfers, while water-rights information is entered to specify details about the permit, appropriated amounts, schedules of use, reported water use, and other details.

Figure 10 shows the network schematic built within ExcelCRAM for the Middle Canadian River, Lower Canadian River and Little River basins. The model includes 74 inflows which represent the water entering the sub-basins, 69 demands that represent the existing diversion points/water rights, and 12 reservoirs or lakes. Water is distributed in the system on a monthly basis and demands are supplied based upon the selected management scenario:

. Scenario 1: Historic Use Simulations under this scenario deliver water to currently active demands using reported water use values. Unreported values are replaced with the appropriated amount and there are no demands prior to date of permit issue. This scenario is mainly used for calibration, and ensures that the model is representative of the hydrology of the basin, and able to reproduce the recorded streamflow of USGS gages with less than a 5 % error. . Scenario 2: Full Use--Priority based Water is delivered to all currently active permits using the full appropriated amounts for all years. Distribution of water to demands is based on their priority in time, where senior water rights are first in obtaining water before junior rights. This scenario is mainly used by the OWRB to identify interference of water rights from a legal prospective. . Scenario 3: Average Reported Use This scenario delivers water to currently active demands using the average of the reported use, for all years and unreported values, based on their priority in time. The resulting information is useful to determine shortages and interference based on average use. . Scenario 4: Full Use--No priority This scenario delivers water from upstream to downstream in the basin, using the permitted amounts for active demands, for all years with no priority of use. This scenario is the most used by the OWRB to perform drought analyses, identify over-appropriated areas, and anticipate water shortages and interference of water rights based on use instead of priority.

Page 12

EXPLANATION Inflows

Water rights (diversions) Basin Outlet Ponds or lakes

FIGURE 10 SCREENSHOT OF THE NETWORK SCHEMATIC FROM THE ALLOCATION MODEL FOR THE MIDDLE CANADIAN RIVER, LOWER CANADIAN RIVER, AND LITTLE RIVER BASINS Simulations are run, and the model presents tables with details about shortages, water availability and valuable hydrologic information. Results from the model are archived in a database and plotted using ArcGIS®, which allows the user to see the spatial distribution of water shortages in the basin.

WATER AVAILABILITY The allocation model has been used to evaluate various management scenarios and hydrologic conditions in the basin. Availability and reliability are estimated from simulations at the sub-basin scale. Table 5 presents the mean annual unappropriated water as of 2009 at each sub-basin computed by the model. The spatial distribution of potential water shortages for scenario 4 (i.e. anticipated shortages based on the hydrologic conditions of the simulation) is depicted Figure 11.

TABLE 5 ESTIMATED MEAN MONTHLY WATER AVAILABILITY AT EACH SUB-BASIN IN THE AREA IN ACRE-FEET (AC-FT)

Mean monthly Unappropriated Water in systems 2-6-1, 2-6-2, and 2-8 HUC-12* Area (Ac) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 110309020102 55 13,353 16,130 24,010 21,900 50,303 38,769 1,495 17,962 14,661 16,927 12,261 12,259 110902020103 49 14,350 17,337 25,976 24,328 54,123 41,263 22,438 18,465 5,494 18,237 13,397 13,326 110902020104 40 15,184 18,335 27,601 26,335 57,272 43,361 23,278 18,933 16,207 19,324 14,338 14,208 110902020105 49 1,024 1,226 1,994 2,465 3,866 2,537 954 504 835 1,336 1,156 1,083 110902020106 49 2,050 2,453 3,990 4,926 7,736 4,812 1,540 705 1,449 2,673 2,312 2,168 110902020107 64 6,514 19,926 30,191 29,534 62,293 46,541 24,300 19,364 17,164 21,059 15,838 15,615 110902020108 57 19,684 23,736 36,389 37,166 74,361 52,968 24,847 18,757 18,286 25,130 19,417 18,981 110902020201 30 629 753 1,223 1,512 2,373 1,567 603 325 521 821 710 665 110902020202 35 726 869 1,414 1,747 2,741 1,822 722 398 616 947 819 768 110902020203 34 1,326 1,587 2,579 3,188 5,004 3,247 1,174 600 1,046 1,730 1,496 1,403 110902020204 51 3,102 3,712 6,038 7,463 11,709 7,690 2,912 1,547 2,537 4,046 3,500 3,281 110902020205 53 4,204 5,030 8,184 10,115 15,868 10,455 4,007 2,152 3,471 5,483 4,743 4,446 110902020301 93 21,601 26,038 40,134 41,789 81,626 57,468 6,216 19,335 19,599 27,635 21,586 21,015 110902020302 66 22,975 27,682 42,810 45,095 86,812 60,914 27,579 20,085 20,761 29,426 23,135 22,467 110902020303 50 24,004 28,912 44,814 47,572 90,698 63,493 28,601 20,650 21,636 30,768 24,296 23,556 110902020304 38 24,792 29,855 46,349 49,469 93,674 65,458 29,357 21,057 22,290 31,796 25,186 24,389 110902020401 47 972 1,163 1,894 2,341 3,670 2,446 978 545 831 1,268 1,097 1,028 110902020402 36 1,719 2,057 3,350 4,140 6,493 4,327 1,731 965 1,470 2,242 1,940 1,818 110902020403 37 764 914 1,489 1,840 2,886 1,923 769 429 653 997 862 808 110902020404 25 1,292 1,546 2,518 3,111 4,879 3,252 1,301 725 1,105 1,685 1,458 1,366 110902020405 50 2,743 3,282 5,346 6,606 10,364 6,899 2,752 1,530 2,342 3,578 3,096 2,902 110902020501 24 489 585 952 1,177 1,846 1,230 492 274 418 638 551 517 110902020502 38 793 949 1,546 1,910 2,996 1,997 799 445 678 1,035 895 839 110902020503 50 32,590 39,185 61,532 68,234 123,111 84,912 36,906 25,153 28,796 41,967 33,983 32,636 110902020504 41 847 1,018 1,655 2,046 3,215 2,128 834 455 717 1,108 959 900 110902020505 32 1,508 1,809 2,943 3,637 5,711 3,791 1,500 826 1,282 1,970 1,704 1,599 110902020506 51 34,446 41,405 65,146 72,688 130,114 88,938 37,626 25,170 29,741 44,388 36,076 34,599 110902020507 57 37,137 44,628 70,392 79,171 40,289 95,630 40,182 26,540 31,961 47,900 39,114 37,448 110902020508 23 473 566 921 1,139 1,786 1,190 476 265 404 617 533 500 110902020510 40 39,219 47,119 74,447 84,181 148,148 00,831 42,205 27,637 33,700 50,615 41,463 39,650 110902020601 44 42,590 51,513 82,875 95,037 65,934 112,251 5,661 29,028 36,413 55,482 45,453 43,199 110902020602 53 43,686 52,825 85,009 97,675 170,073 115,008 46,759 29,637 37,348 56,912 46,690 44,359 110902020603 51 44,733 54,077 87,048 00,194 174,024 117,640 47,808 30,220 38,241 58,277 47,871 45,466 110902020604 35 724 866 1,409 1,742 2,732 1,804 695 374 600 944 816 765 110902020606 51 58,840 2,286 116,197 136,657 232,521 157,817 64,168 39,652 48,349 75,108 64,772 60,897 110902030101 17 243 315 489 631 1,030 697 316 184 195 301 304 271 110902030102 25 361 468 729 939 1,532 1,041 478 282 295 448 451 402 110902030103 33 114 229 327 383 409 224 103 42 15 - 80 166 110902030104 36 1,240 1,688 2,604 3,318 5,209 3,444 1,548 871 911 1,400 1,491 1,424 110902030105 32 471 610 950 1,225 1,998 1,358 623 367 385 584 588 524 110902030106 42 617 800 1,246 1,605 2,619 1,780 817 481 504 765 771 687 Mean monthly Unappropriated Water in systems 2-6-1, 2-6-2, and 2-8 HUC-12* Area (Ac) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 110902030107 41 1,212 1,571 2,447 3,153 5,145 3,497 1,606 946 991 1,504 1,515 1,351 110902030108 31 2,062 2,702 4,780 5,280 7,916 6,357 1,628 1,022 636 1,824 2,051 2,076 110902030201 38 555 719 1,120 1,444 2,355 1,601 735 433 454 688 694 618 110902030202 33 1,039 1,347 2,098 2,703 4,410 2,997 1,376 811 849 1,289 1,299 1,158 110902030203 33 1,527 1,980 3,083 3,973 6,482 4,405 2,023 1,192 1,249 1,894 1,909 1,702 110902030204 16 237 307 479 617 1,007 684 314 185 194 294 296 264 110902030205 40 2,105 2,729 4,250 5,476 8,935 6,072 2,788 1,643 1,721 2,611 2,631 2,345 110902030206 22 321 415 647 834 1,362 921 420 246 260 398 401 357 110902030207 17 2,596 3,366 5,242 6,755 11,021 7,490 3,439 2,026 2,123 3,221 3,245 2,893 110902030208 39 3,482 4,514 7,031 9,060 14,784 10,043 4,609 2,713 2,846 4,320 4,353 3,881 110902030301 24 354 459 715 921 1,504 1,022 469 276 290 439 443 395 110902030302 36 2,594 3,391 5,852 6,663 10,173 7,871 2,298 1,401 1,051 2,483 2,716 2,669 110902030304 18 273 347 543 688 1,138 781 337 205 218 338 336 299 110902030305 26 3,805 4,961 8,297 9,808 15,313 11,138 3,634 2,155 1,870 3,986 4,230 4,018 110902030306 26 372 483 752 969 1,581 1,074 493 291 305 462 466 415 110902030307 35 4,595 5,979 9,884 11,842 18,646 13,410 4,656 2,763 2,511 4,966 5,212 4,894 110902030308 41 5,570 7,244 11,855 14,382 22,794 16,227 5,947 3,522 3,308 6,178 6,433 5,983 110902030310 33 6,487 8,433 13,705 16,766 26,684 18,856 7,133 4,209 4,041 7,315 7,580 7,005 110902030311 41 7,078 9,200 14,899 18,305 29,195 20,562 7,917 4,671 4,525 8,049 8,319 7,664 110902030402 35 11,812 15,337 24,456 30,622 49,298 34,194 14,135 8,311 8,365 13,922 14,238 12,939 110902030403 37 506 656 1,020 1,315 2,146 1,458 668 393 413 627 632 563 110902030404 19 12,322 16,073 25,674 32,167 51,760 35,746 14,677 8,545 8,645 14,502 14,888 13,544 Monthly Average 9.445 10,598 18,501 19,513 33,932 24,524 9,823 7,475 8,108 12,401 10,176 9,705

*HUC-12 refers to the 12-unit hydrologic unit codes of the National Hydrography Dataset

Explanation of Figure 1s Conditions: Scenario 4 and historic flows from 1950 to 2008. Water is delivered to permits from upstream to downstream users with no restrictions of priority, and all water rights use the full amounts authorized by their permits each year of the simulation period. Calibration: Simulated streamflow was previously calibrated to the USGS gage on the Canadian River at Calvin and on the Little River near Sasakwa (± 5% Error). Results: The simulation uses almost 60 years of historic data, which captures the statistical characteristics of the basin hydrology and accounts for the probable range of future hydrology. The model in ExcelCRAM presents tables with valuable hydrologic data, including estimates of unappropriated available water at the sub-basin scale (Table 5), and at ungaged locations (nodes). It also has the capability of estimating water shortages in the system, representing supply failures where available flows do not meet the demands (full permitted amounts in Scenario 4) of water rights. Results from the model are linked to geographic information systems, where the spatial distribution of shortages can be visualized by the user. A threshold was set in the model to display only permits with four or more shortages. The shortages are color-coded according to their frequency of occurrence, and listed for each sub-basin. More specific information about flow availability, reliability, and potential shortages in this basin can be provided by the OWRB upon request.

Page 15

*Shortages represent water failures in the system, where available flows (historic) would not meet current demands

FIGURE 11 WATER SHORTAGES ESTIMATED BY THE ALLOCATION MODEL BASED ON HISTORIC FLOWS (1950 – 2008) AND CONDITIONS OF SCENARIO 4

REFERENCES

OWRB, 2009. “Appropriation and use of stream water”, Title 785, Chapter 20, accessed November 12, 2009 at http://www.owrb.ok.gov/util/rules/pdf_rul/RulesCurrent2010/Ch20.pdf

OWRB, 2007. “Oklahoma Water Atlas” Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Published through partnership with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, 190 p.

Rutledge, A.T., 1998. “Computer Programs for Describing the Recession of Ground-Water Discharge and for Estimating Mean Ground-Water Recharge and Discharge from Streamflow Records-Update”. U.S Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations Report 98-4148, 43 p.

McGaugh, M.L. “Hydrologic Investigation of the Canadian River and Little River”. Published by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Technical Report 86-4.

U.S. Forest Service, 2005. “Final Environmental Impact Assessment, Revised Land and Resources Management Plan: Ouachita National Forest and Oklahoma”. Published by the Department of Agriculture. Management Bulletin R8-MB 124 B.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011. National Water Information System data, accessed January 12, 2011, at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD): accessed February 3, 2011, at http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

Wurbs, R.A., 2006. “Methods for Developing Naturalized Monthly Flows at Gaged and Ungaged Sites”. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, February 2006, p. 55-64.

Wurbs, R.A., 2004. "Water Allocation Systems in Texas," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Carfax Publishing, Vol. 20, No. 2.